This is your problem, is not censorship, is filtering, is like saying an open triple A tv channel is censuring porn because is not exposing it, there is a place and time for each thing, that is what you don't understand.

This is your problem, is not censorship, is filtering, is like saying an open triple A tv channel is censuring porn because is not exposing it, there is a place and time for each thing, that is what you don't understand.

Wow... so removing images of what a small number of overly-insecure people deems as inappropriate for everyone is no longer considered censorship. Never mind the fact that Google doesn't clearly explain why this has been done and how to get around it for those who don't want to be restricted (or just put it where it's expected, back in the options), so most people will be left with no other way than switching search engines.

The Internet is not broadcast television; everyone uses it differently. Not everyone is forced to see the same tame "family-friendly" garbage Fox wants you to see. I don't think anyone would type "threesome" or "blowjob" by mistake, and those queries show intent as clearly as it could possibly be. Filtering the results of such obviously adult-oriented searches is most definitely censorship.

You can "filter" ads from ever being displayed in your web browser, but this is more often referred to by what it actually does: "ad blocking." You can control your entire home Internet connection by "filtering" certain entire categories of websites using OpenDNS, but the end result is that you're censoring your Internet connection by selectively choosing what web sites are able to be visited. In other words, blocking what you see as inappropriate.

This is effectively censoring for the majority of people, who will not know the tricks to bypass it, because Google doesn't tell them. Some of these people will probably end up switching search engines as a result. Hell, if the competition didn't mostly suck, I probably would have considered switching myself over this just over the fact that Google is trying to play net nanny here--and I don't even use Google for porn.

Filtering, blocking, censoring... there's not much of a difference here in the end result. "Filtering" is just a method of excluding/blocking/censoring content.

Never mind the fact that Google doesn't clearly explain why this has been done and how to get around it for those who don't want to be restricted

Why did Google didn't add an option for opt out? I don't know, but what would that be relevant? if you want porn, you don't go to Google images, that's for sure.

Google is trying to play net nanny here

Some of these people will probably end up switching search engines as a result.

yeah, the ones looking for porn in google images for sure, how many of those freaks are out there? is a mistery.

Filtering, blocking, censoring... there's not much of a difference here in the end result. "Filtering" is just a method of excluding/blocking/censoring content.

Yes there is, but as the rest of the complainers, seems like you want everybody to see porn as something armless and part of our every day life, so you don't feel judged, and create all this whole argument about censorship just to mask the fact, that you don't want to be judged for the sick things you look at the internet.